contributors
Kimberley A. Arbeau, MA, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Steven R. Asher, PhD, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Thomas J. Berndt, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Karen L. Bierman, PhD, Department of Psychology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Michel Boivin, PhD, School of Psychology, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada
Cathryn Booth-LaForce, PhD, Department of Family and Child Nursing, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Julie C. Bowker, PhD, Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York
Mara Brendgen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
B. Bradford Brown, PhD, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Caroline B. Browne, BA, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
William M. Bukowski, PhD, Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Marlene Caplan, PhD, Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre, London, United Kingdom
Xinyin Chen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Janet Chung, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Antonius H. N. Cillessen, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, and Behavioral Science Institute, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
W. Andrew Collins, PhD, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Robert J. Coplan, PhD, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Nicki R. Crick, PhD, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Susanne Denham, PhD, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
Erin L. Dietz, BA, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
Thomas J. Dishion, PhD, Child and Family Center, Department of Psychology, and Department of School Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
Nancy Eisenberg, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Richard A. Fabes, PhD, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Wyndol Furman, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado
Scott D. Gest, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Sandra Graham, PhD, Department of Education, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
John D. Guerry, BA, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Laura D. Hanish, PhD, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Willard W. Hartup, EdD, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Dale F. Hay, PhD, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
Alice Y. Ho, MA, Department of Education, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Claire Hofer, PhD, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Nina Howe, PhD, Department of Education, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Carollee Howes, PhD, Psychological Studies in Education, University of California–Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Celia Hsiao, MS, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Noah Simon Jampol, BA, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Amy E. Kennedy, PhD, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Kathryn A. Kerns, PhD, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio
Margaret Kerr, PhD, Department of Behavioural, Social, and Legal Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
Melanie Killen, PhD, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Thomas A. Kindermann, PhD, Department of Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
Gary W. Ladd, EdD, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Brett Laursen, PhD, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Peter E. L. Marks, MA, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Carol Lynn Martin, PhD, School of Social and Family Dynamics, Program in Family and Human Development, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Melissa A. McCandless, BA, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Kristina L. McDonald, PhD, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Felicia Meyer, MA, Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Nazanin Mohajeri-Nelson, PhD, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Clairneige Motzoi, MA, Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Dianna Murray-Close, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
Alison Nash, PhD, Department of Psychology, State University of New York at New Paltz, New Paltz, New York
Kätlin Peets, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Timothy F. Piehler, MS, Child and Family Center, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon
C. J. Powers, MS, Department of Psychology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
Mitchell J. Prinstein, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Gwen Pursell, MA, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Diana Rancourt, MS, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Amanda J. Rose, PhD, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
Contributors
Linda Rose-Krasnor, PhD, Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
Hildy Ross, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Kenneth H. Rubin, PhD, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Adam Rutland, PhD, Centre for the Study of Group Processes, Department of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, United Kingdom
Christina Salmivalli, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland, and Centre for Behavioural Research, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
António José Santos, PhD, Institute of Applied Psychology, Unit for the Study of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Lisbon, Portugal
Rhiannon L. Smith, BA, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
Håkan Stattin, PhD, Department of Behavioural, Social, and Legal Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
April Z. Taylor, PhD, Department of Child and Adolescent Development, California State University–North Ridge, North Ridge, California
Julie Vaughan, MA, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
Brian E. Vaughn, PhD, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Frank Vitaro, PhD, School of Psychoeducation, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Kathryn R. Wentzel, PhD, Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Preface
The typical child and adolescent spends significant periods of time each day in the company of peers. As children and adolescents, in particular, grow older, the periods of time they spend with peers lengthen and extend beyond formal settings such as school and adult-led extracurricular activities. Significantly, it is within these various peer contexts that children and adolescents acquire a wide range of skills, attitudes, and experiences that influence their adaptation across the lifespan. Accordingly, peers are viewed as powerful socialization “agents,” contributing well beyond the collective influences of family, school, and neighborhood to child and adolescent social, emotional, and cognitive wellbeing and adjustment.
Given these empirically supported realities, it is surprising that, until the publication of this Handbook, there was not a previous collection of reviews discussing the history of research and theory and describing contemporary research and methods pertaining to child and adolescent peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Fortunately, this book provides such a collection. Its chapters can be viewed as both historical accounts and state-of-the-art descriptions—outlining the remarkable progress of research on peer interactions, relationships, and groups during the past five decades, and discussing what we know to date about the features, processes, and effects of children’s and adolescents’ experiences with their peers.
Research on the child’s world of peers was initially motivated by four distinct ideas. One idea derived from social learning theory. Studies in the 1960s used the concepts of reward and imitation to understand how peers could shape each other’s behavior and act as agents of socialization. Researchers typically used laboratory contexts or controlled observations in preschools to demonstrate that peers could influence each other through their experiences in, or observations of, basic forms of social interaction. These effects could be seen on such broad and disparate behaviors as cooperation, altruism, and aggression.
The central concept of the second idea, sociometry, is that in order to fully understand group membership and individual placement or status within groups, one has to recognize the attractions and repulsions between individuals. Sociometry is both an idea and a technique, as it provides researchers with ways of thinking about groups and ways of developing measures of groups per se as well as the individuals comprising a group. Most often, the groups that were of interest to the practitioners of sociometry comprised children.
A third idea is that relationships are significant for normal and abnormal development. This idea is apparent in the writings of (1) Blatz (1966), a pediatrician who emphasized the value of security in relationships as a critical determinant of well-being (see also Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978, and Bowlby, 1969/1982); (2) Hinde (1987), an ethologist who recognized that in order to fully understand animal (and human) development one must understand how animals (humans) interact with one another and form (and dissolve) relationships with one another, and how the groups within which animals (and humans) are members can influence or be influenced by the group’s members and their interactions and relationships with each other; and (3) Sullivan (1953), a psychiatrist who believed that the study of personality and the study of interpersonal relationships could not be separated.
The fourth seminal idea was drawn from the observations and research of clinical psychologists and other behavioral scientists who found that assessments of peer relations taken in childhood could predict adjustment and maladjustment in adolescence and adulthood (e.g., Cowen, Pedersen, Bagigian, Izzo, & Trost, 1973; Roff, 1961). They interpreted these findings to indicate that, at the least, the assessment of problematic experiences with peers could be regarded as risk indices for unhealthy psychological development.
Together, the aforementioned four ideas provided researchers with significant conceptual insights for conducting research on the world of peers, new user-friendly methods and measures to assess children’s experiences with peers, and a new motivation to inspire and guide research on peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Nearly 30 years ago these four ideas coalesced to help create the beginnings of a vibrant and ever-expanding literature on the features and effects of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. The confluence of developmental scientists interested in basic developmental processes and the child clinical psychologists interested in the origins of behavioral and affective maladjustment occurred at about the same time that the concept of psychopathology during childhood was being reconsidered. Central to this “new” approach known as “developmental psychopathology” is the idea that the study of normal developmental processes and the study of psychopathology are mutually enriching activities (Sroufe & Rutter, 1984). Research on peers was ideally suited to this approach, perhaps more so than for most other developmental topics.
But 30 years ago, research on the topic of the child’s world of peers was relatively homogeneous and focused. Other than emerging work on infant and toddler peer interaction, altruistic and agonistic behavior, young children’s social pretense, and early adolescent friendship and moral development, most research on peers that appeared in archival journals centered on concern with sociometric rejection. Over the course of the following decades, however, peer research has become highly differentiated in the questions it asks, and the measures used in these studies have become increasingly refined. Development is an issue. How does the child’s social life with peers develop? What accounts for normalcy and deviation from the norm in the expression of social behavior and the experience of social relationships? The use of broadband measures of such constructs as social competence, aggression, and withdrawal have been replaced by the use of nuanced and specific measures that reflect sensitivity to the distinctions between phenomena that had been bundled together within a single domain. For example, measures of aggression were developed to distinguish between whether an act was proactively or reactively aggressive, whether it was relational or physical, and whether it was direct or indirect. Social withdrawal was reconceptualized as reflecting the child’s emotion-based
withdrawal from the peer milieu or the child’s isolation and rejection by peers. There was a clearer recognition of the distinction between acceptance and friendship, peer rejection and exclusion, and social and emotional competence. Not only were group acceptance and rejection or dyadic friendship considered to be of significance in typical and atypical development, so too were romantic relationships, as well as the groups and networks within which friendships and romantic relationships occurred. For all of the above, new measures and methods were developed. This relatively recent expansion in peer-related constructs and refinements in measurement have significantly broadened and enriched the study of peer interactions, relationships, and groups. And each of these refinements and expansions is highlighted in this compendium.
As measures and methods have become more articulated, and as constructs have been introduced or reconstrued, research having to do with peer interactions, relationships, and groups has become more heterogeneous and diverse. This handbook is testimony to the field’s diversity. We include chapters on methods and measures. We highlight issues pertaining to development; ethnicity, race, and culture; emotional and social-cognitive processes; play and the understanding of nonliterality; the significance of conflict and peer exclusion; and influences varying from the genetic to the family to the neighborhood. These nuances allow us to better understand the antecedents and consequences of a range of peer experiences and to develop procedures for helping children and adolescents whose peer relations are problematic.
This handbook is organized topically and developmentally. It begins with two chapters outlining historical and theoretical underpinnings to contemporary research on peer interactions, relationships, and groups. This is followed by a section on methods and measures centered on peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Thereafter, there are separate chapters focused on peer interactions, relationships, and groups within infancy and early childhood, followed by chapters focused on these same general constructs in middle childhood and adolescence. Beyond these developmentally oriented sections, we arrive at separate sections on such topics as the distal (race/ethnicity, culture, neighborhood) and the proximal (genes, temperament, parents, and family) factors influencing peer interactions, relationships, and groups in childhood and adolescence. We end with two sections—one in which the varied consequences (school and psychological adjustment) of children’s peer experiences are described and the other in which policy and translational issues are noted.
Overall, this handbook marks a historical step in the field of developmental science. Thirty years ago, the field remained generally consumed by the notion that the primary influence on socioemotional development emanated from the quality of children’s and adolescents’ parent–child interactions and relationships. Today, however, we are more aware of the significance influence of peer interactions, relationships, and groups on development. Thirty years later, the contents of this handbook are testimony to the distance the field of developmental science has traveled.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blatz, W. (1966). Human security: Some reflections. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)
Cowen, E. L., Pedersen, A., Bagigian, H., Izzo, L. D., & Trost, M. A. (1973). Long-term follow-up of early detected vulnerable children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 438–446.
Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Roff, M. (1961). Childhood social interactions and young adult bad conduct. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 63, 333–337.
Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 17–29.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
PARt i. introduction: History and theor y
1. critical Issues and theoretical Viewpoints 3
Willard W. Hartup
2. trends, travails, and turning Points in early research on children’s Peer relationships: legacies and lessons for our time? 20
Gary W. Ladd
PARt ii. Social behaviors, interactions, Relationships, and Groups: What Should be Measured, How, and Why?
3. children’s behaviors and Interactions with Peers 45
Richard A. Fabes, Carol Lynn Martin, and Laura D. Hanish
4. Methods for Investigating children’s relationships with friends 63
Thomas J. Berndt and Melissa A. McCandless
5 sociometric Methods 82
Antonius H. N. Cillessen
6. assessment of the Peer Group: Identifying naturally occurring social networks and capturing their effects 100
Thomas A. Kindermann and Scott D. Gest
PARt iii. infancy and Early Childhood
7. the beginnings of Peer relations 121
Dale F. Hay, Marlene Caplan, and Alison Nash
8. Peer Interactions and Play in early childhood 143
Robert J. Coplan and Kimberley A. Arbeau
9. social–emotional competence in early childhood 162
Linda Rose-Krasnor and Susanne Denham
10. friendship in early childhood
Carollee Howes
11. structural descriptions of social transactions among Young children: affiliation and dominance in Preschool Groups 195
Brian E. Vaughn and António José Santos
PARt iV. Middle Childhood and Early Adolescence
12. friendship as Process, function, and outcome 217
William M. Bukowski, Clairneige Motzoi, and Felicia Meyer
13. the behavioral basis of acceptance, rejection, and Perceived Popularity 232
Steven R. Asher and Kristina L. McDonald
14. social exclusion in childhood and adolescence 249
Melanie Killen, Adam Rutland, and Noah Simon Jampol
15. conflict in Peer relationships
Brett Laursen and Gwen Pursell
16. aggression and Peer relationships in school-age children: relational and Physical aggression in Group and dyadic contexts 287
Nicki R. Crick, Dianna Murray-Close, Peter E. L. Marks, and Nazanin Mohajeri-Nelson
17. avoiding and Withdrawing from the Peer Group 303
Kenneth H. Rubin, Julie C. Bowker, and Amy E. Kennedy
18. bullies, Victims, and bully–Victim relationships in Middle childhood and early adolescence 322
Christina Salmivalli and Kätlin Peets
19. adolescent romantic relationships and experiences 341
Wyndol Furman and W. Andrew Collins
20. Informal Peer Groups in Middle childhood and adolescence
B. Bradford Brown and Erin L. Dietz
PARt V. Distal Correlates of Children’s Peer Relationships
21. sex differences in Peer relationships
Amanda J. Rose and Rhiannon L. Smith
22. race and ethnicity in Peer relations research 394 Sandra Graham, April Z. Taylor, and Alice Y. Ho
23. neighborhood contexts of Peer relationships and Groups
Håkan Stattin and Margaret Ker r
24. Peer Interactions and relationships from a cross- cultural Perspective
Xinyin Chen, Janet Chung, and Celia Hsiao
PARt Vi. Proximal Correlates of Children’s Social Skills and Peer Relationships
25. Genetic factors in children’s Peer relations 455
Mara Brendgen and Michel Boivin
26. temperament, self-regulation, and Peer social competence 473
Nancy Eisenberg, Julie Vaughan, and Claire Hofer
27. child–Parent attachment relationships, Peer relationships, and Peer-Group functioning 490
Cathryn Booth-LaForce and Kathryn A. Kerns
28. family Influences on children’s Peer relationships 508
Hildy Ross and Nina Howe
PARt Vii. Childhood Peer Experiences and Later Adjustment
29. Peers and academic functioning at school 531
Kathryn R. Wentzel
30. Peer reputations and Psychological adjustment 548
Mitchell J. Prinstein, Diana Rancourt, John D. Guerry, and Caroline B. Browne
31. the role of friendship in child and adolescent Psychosocial development 568
Frank Vitaro, Michel Boivin, and William M. Bukowski
PARt Viii. translation and Policy
32. deviant by design: Peer contagion in development, Interventions, and schools 589
Thomas J. Dishion and Timothy F. Piehler
33. social skills training to Improve Peer relations
Karen L. Bierman and C. J. Powers
Peer Influence
Contact with other children can alter a child’s instrumental activity, the frequency and intensity of ongoing actions, and interpersonal perceptions. Anyone who has watched a group of children has seen innumerable instances of Child B doing something different after a social exchange with Child A. Infants shift their attention from their own feet to the face of another infant newly placed nearby; toddlers scream when another child takes away a toy; preschoolers put down their paints when a companion suggests playing house; a school-age child refuses to go to school because of a run-in with a bully; and an adolescent notes that her friend is wearing black lipstick and turns up wearing it herself the next day. Such effects, known generically as “behavior contagion,” involve a wide array of social-psychological processes and occur under enormously varied conditions.
Peer Reinforcement and Performance Theory
Reinforcement theories that depend on the construct of drive reduction (e.g., Hull, 1943) have not been very useful to the empirical study of peer relations. No one denies that some changes in a child’s behavior may stem from peer interaction that generates drive reduction on a contingent basis. But the earlier social learning theories based on drive reduction (e.g., Dollard & Miller, 1950) proved to be limited in their utility for several reasons: (1) attentional and observational phenomena were not accounted for adequately; (2) knowing what responses are being reinforced by what kind of drive reduction in most peer interactions is difficult to determine; and (3) connecting the acquisition of discrete responses to the complex planning and executive behavior employed by older children in their interactions with one another is difficult. Thus, the limited usefulness of these theories in peer relations research is due partly to limitations in the theories themselves and partly to difficulties in application.
Theories of operant learning (behavior modification) have been more useful in studying peer relations, because such models of behavior change depend only on the observer’s ability to identify positive and negative reinforcing events in the interactional sequence (i.e., stimuli associated with response acceleration or deceleration). Over the years, Gerald Patterson and his associates have explored such events in both peer interaction and family interaction, beginning with a series of studies in which acceleration and deceleration in the aggressive behavior of nursery school children were shown to be linked either to positive or negative reinforcing reactions by the other children (Patterson, Littman, & Bricker, 1967). These studies required clearly operationalized aggression constructs, a demonstrable catalog of reinforcing events, and reliable measures of the occurrence of these stimuli and the relevant reinforcers. Positive reinforcers for aggression occurring within peer interaction turn out not to be approval or attention but, rather, crying, passivity, and defensiveness by the victim. Punishments consist of the victim’s tattling or counterattacks.
Subsequent investigation of these notions stresses the social disadvantages that aggressive children encounter in making friends and in social activity. Escalating aggression, based on coercive socialization in both the family and the peer group (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992), limits the aggressive child in his or her attempts to acquire friends, so that close associates are likely to be aggressive and antisocial themselves. Within these contexts, talk with friends is likely to emphasize deviant behavior (Poulin, Dishion, &
Haas, 1999) and interaction to involve conflict and assertiveness (Dishion, Andrews, & Crosby, 1995), both of which lead to acceleration of troublesome, antisocial behavior. Deviant talk, then, figures centrally in the development of aggressive individuals. The extent to which these theoretical viewpoints are useful in studying the development of prosocial behavior and peer interaction, for example, or socially withdrawn behavior, are not well established.
Social Learning and Imitation: The Case of Observational Learning
Social learning theory originated with applications of drive reduction theories of reinforcement to imitation and aggression (Miller & Dollard, 1941; Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer & Sears, 1939). Modern social learning theory, however, derives mostly from the work of Albert Bandura (1977) and his associates. Observational learning stands at the center of this system of ideas, along with the demonstration that contiguity between modeling cues and the observer’s perceptions appears to be mainly responsible for laying down representations of the model’s behavior in the observer’s memory. Reinforcement of the observer is unnecessary; repeated trials are frequently unnecessary; and it appears that the information contained in modeling cues lies at the heart of the observational learning process. Modeling of specific acts may be synthesized by the observer to form regularized sequences, and these “scripts” become represented in memory. Broad categories (e.g., sympathy) may also be internalized, including information about elicitors and consequences; these categories have been called “schemas” (Schank & Abelson, 1977) and furnish the context for guiding, interpreting, and performing the modeled actions. Reproduction of modeling cues depends on a variety of conditions. Among the most salient are observed consequences of the model’s actions. Those that lead to favorable outcomes rather than unfavorable ones (as noted by the observer) are more likely to be reproduced. Empirical studies have established other conditions that determine whether a child will or will not replicate the actions of another person; for example, models who are nurturant, adept, and socially powerful are more likely to be imitated than those who do not possess these characteristics (Bandura, 1977).
But nearly everything that has been learned about such matters derives from experiments in which adult models were used with child observers. A small but significant literature exists to show that children also imitate other children. Observational effects are particularly strong in certain instances (e.g., situations involving disinhibition accompanied by vicarious reinforcement) (Masters, Ford, Arend, Grotevant, & Clark, 1979). Documentation remains poor, however, with respect to manifestations of observational peer learning in everyday life, especially when there is a delay between the modeling event and its replication by the observer. Finally, developmental studies are lacking.
Cognitive Theories
Piaget, Cooperation, and Conflict
According to Jean Piaget (1926), cognitive development depends on activity in which the individual coordinates perceptions and ideas and overcomes contradictions. Many experiences contribute to these developments, including those that occur during cooperation between the child and other children. Cooperation, however, inevitably exposes the child to views that differ from his or her own, forcing a cognitive rapprochement. Cooperative
and other social interactions with children, in contrast to those with adults, involve declarations, asking questions, exchanging information, working together, argument, objection, persuasion, and comparison. In order for cognitive development to occur through collaboration, “partners [must] have a common language and system of ideas and use reciprocity in examining and adjusting for differences in their opinions” (Rogoff, 1998, p. 685).
Children’s reflections on these interpersonal conflicts produce cognitive conflict within each individual. These conflicts, in turn, motivate a “coordination of understandings.” Most important, these new views or ideas are produced by the children as individuals, and are not shared or consensual cognitions. Conflicts with adults, according to these ideas, are resolved differently—usually with the child yielding to the adult’s point of view, simply because children recognize that adults have greater knowledge about the world than they do. Peer interaction, in contrast, forces children to coordinate or restructure their own views, an activity that is necessary to the permanence of the cognitive advance (Piaget, 1932).
Cognitive development through social exchanges with other children is constrained in the early years by limitations in both language and thought: Both their linguistic limitations and egocentric views of the world mean that young children are not often susceptible to social influence. So, the conflict-induced changes deriving from “equilibration” (as described here) occur most readily among children who can sustain logical argument and discussion with others whose viewpoints differ from their own.
Vygotsky, Mead, and Internalization
Attempting to develop a psychological theory based on dialectical materialism, L. S. Vygotsky (1978) also assumed that cognitive advances are rooted in social interaction. The central process was described as “internalization,” through which the child acquires both equipment for thinking and the social rules governing the use of this equipment. For social interaction to lead to cognitive development, conversation and modeling must occur within the “zone of proximal development,” defined as the difference between what the child can accomplish independently and what can be achieved with the help of others, and must involve problem-solving attempts tuned to a level just beyond the child’s own. These exchanges initially induce cognitive change at an external (social) level that gradually becomes “interiorized.” The child is an active participant in these events, so that internalized skills are not necessarily identical to what the socializing agent represents. Moreover, they are generalized and abstract, not situation specific (Rogoff, 1998).
Across the world’s cultures, the social interaction needed for cognitive development occurs with individuals of many different ages. While expert collaborators are usually needed for the social interactions that lead to internalization, effective collaborators are not always adults. In fact, experience with peers is significant in social and cognitive development, because play and child-caretaking offer many learning opportunities rarely found in interaction with adults.
George Herbert Mead (1934) shared the idea that cognitive attributes originate in social interaction. Most readers associate this writer with his notions about the social origins of the self, but these notions were actually part of a more general theory, whereby social interaction is understood to be the main vehicle driving cognitive development. Within conversations and gestures (a broader construct than hand waving) lies the basis
for the construction of symbolic thought. Linguistic and other symbols occurring in interaction gradually become internalized through their use in cooperative exchanges. “The probable beginning of human communication was in cooperation, not in imitation, where the conduct differed and yet where the act of the one answered to and called out the act of the other” (Mead, 1909, p. 406). Actions of individuals toward one another become significant symbols when, over time, they function in the same way with one individual as with others. Mind and self, according to this view, are constructed through the interiorization of symbols and linguistic behaviors originating in social interaction. One assumes that peer relations advance symbolic interiorization as well as do adult–child relations.
Attribution Theory
When children observe other children or interact with them, successive actions depend on the way children perceive, understand, and explain behavioral outcomes. The notion that an understanding of the connection between “cause” and “effect” bears on ongoing behavior comes originally from Heider (1958) and has become a major tenet in socialcognitive thought. Children’s attributions have been studied most extensively in relation to cause and effect in aggressive interaction and noncompliance, and to some extent in prosocial and cooperative behavior.
Making attributions is a complex activity: It involves understanding the correlation between cause and effect, deciding among alternative attributions, understanding events in terms of their distinctiveness and consistency over time, and determining whether knowledge other than causal information is needed to make relevant attributions (Kelley, 1973). Immediately, then, questions arise as to whether attributional processes are evident in the social interactions of the very young. Young children’s understanding of intentionality is constrained in many ways (Shultz, 1980), but 4-year-olds nevertheless believe it appropriate to respond to hostile provocation with aggressive retaliation, especially when provocation is unambiguous (cf. Ferguson & Rule, 1988).
Information Processing
Information-processing models of social behavior involving children and their peers were designed to account for the manner in which cognitive processes mediate social behavior. Based on the scripts and schemas derived from prior experience and biological dispositions, children are thought to respond to social events by encoding selected information from the ongoing event, representing it in memory, accessing one or several potential responses from memory, deciding among them, and activating a behavioral response utilizing their linguistic and motor repertoires (Dodge, 1986; Rubin & Krasnor, 1986). The information-processing sequence can include both emotional and cognitive elements; these cycles are supposedly iterative, and more than one sequence can occur at a time (Crick & Dodge, 1994).
Although the social information-processing model is presumed to apply broadly to interaction in every social domain, its features have been tested most extensively with aggression. This literature demonstrates, by and large, that aggressive children encode and utilize information relating to aggression differently from nonaggressive children and possess different processing “styles” that are correlated with measures of aggressive behavior (Crick & Dodge, 1994).
Context
Peer influences are contextualized to a greater extent than this account indicates. The extent to which conversation or modeling affects a child depends on the setting in which it occurs, the child being influenced, the child who is the influence source, their relationship to one another, behaviors at issue, group norms, and many other cultural and social conditions. Peer interaction always involves specific children with unique socialization histories, differing histories of interaction with one another, specific content (what the interaction is about), and a unique setting (a situation in time and place). The idea that these conditions moderate social influences is an ecological notion, one that bears a strong relation to the ideas of writers who have demonstrated the close relation between behavior and the settings and social situations in which it occurs (Barker & Wright, 1955; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Not every contextual characteristic moderates every kind of social influence, but the issue is knowing when to incorporate relevant ones into a research or intervention model.
Peer relationships
Socialization does not consist of myriad influence attempts scattered helter-skelter across millions of transactions with innumerable partners. Rather, the social encounters of human beings occur within organized frameworks that comprise interlocking relationships embedded in interlocking social networks. Most writers regard this design for living as having evolved with the species to protect individuals from environmental danger and increase chances of reproductive success.
“Relationships,” defined as aggregations of interactions that endure over time and that form the basis for reciprocal interpersonal expectations (Hinde, 1997), are thus basic social contexts. Competence in communication, impulse regulation, getting along with others, and knowledge about the world emerge mostly from early relationships and are refined continuously within them. Relationships are resources that buffer one from stress and are instruments for both cooperative and competitive problem solving. Relationships are also forerunners of other relationships. No wonder, then, that well-functioning relationships have a bearing on mental and physical health, mortality, and well-being. Moreover, these synergies “do not appear to be artifacts of personality, temperament, behavior, or lifestyles but instead reflect the direct influence of relationship events on biological processes” (Reis & Collins, 2004, p. 233).
Psychodynamic Theories
The theory of psychosexual development enunciated by Sigmund Freud (1905/1953) aroused both contemporary controversy and continued discomfort among younger psychoanalysts and students of personality development. Most analysts did not question the importance of biological drives in behavioral functioning but, at the same time, many believed that interpersonal relations rather than vicissitudes of the libido are the major vectors of personality development. Even among those analysts who were comfortable with libido theory were some who thought that insufficient attention had been given to psychosocial experiences in personality development. Indeed, several psychoanalysts
made the case that although mother–child relationships seem to be responsible for early individuation, ego development reflects relationships with other children (compeers) as well.
Harry Stack Sullivan (1953) constructed a general theory known as the “interpersonal theory” of psychiatry. According to these views, biological needs drive the individual toward satisfaction (absence of tension), whereas interpersonal relations are aimed at achieving security. In the earliest stages of development, a self “dynamism” comes to be organized around the “good me” and the “bad me,” a differentiation that emerges largely from mother–child interaction. Parental approval and disapproval remain paramount in early childhood, resulting in the acquisition of basic norms and knowledge about one’s culture. Beginning with the juvenile era, which follows, children make sharper self–other distinctions and become preoccupied with comparisons involving compeers. Social skills necessary for cooperation and competition, and a sense of “reputation” emerge based on interaction with other children. But it is only during preadolescence that most children locate a chum (usually of the same sex), and it is this event that produces real sensitivity to what matters to another person (empathy) and abandonment of the egocentric orientations of earlier childhood.
Preadolescent chumships were likened to love, recognizing that this is “isophilic” love, that is, love of one’s own kind. These “integrating tendencies,” as Sullivan called them, give children new expansiveness in interpersonal relations; they can express themselves freely to their companions, experience intimacy without fear of rebuff or humiliation, and discover “consensual validation” (agreement with their friends) on many aspects of normative behavior and attitudes. Still buffered by institutions such as the family and the school, preadolescents now have the chance, with friends, to explore interpersonal relations in ways that will be needed in adulthood. Development during adolescence itself is marked by the emergence of what Sullivan called the “lust dynamism,” which transforms the adolescent’s social networks so as to center on opposite-sex peers but with intimacy and empathic needs intact.
Other than the relationship between mother and child in infancy, close relationships do not appear in Erik Erikson’s (1968) theory of personality development until young adulthood. Best known for the formulation of ”psychosocial stages” that parallel the well-known stages of psychosexual development (even going beyond them into old age), this theory expands on libido theory rather than replaces it, postulating a series of crises, tensions, or polarities that the child must resolve during each stage to confront and assimilate the demands of succeeding stages.
Erikson regarded preadolescence as dominated by work, mastering the cognitive and social skills needed in the real world and school, acquiring competence in selfregulation, and developing talents that are gratifying and useful in one’s culture. Preadolescents learn much from peers and may develop close affiliations with them, but these relationships and the accompanying challenges are not the main developmental tasks: Those remain “industry” required for mastery in home, school, and community, and, subsequently, “identity.” In his volume, Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968), Erikson asserted that close relationships with others are not possible until identity development is complete, because intimacy requires knowing and sharing the self. Thus, relationships with friends and romantic partners during this period are ultimately in the service of identity exploration. Once again, the needs for intimacy and reciprocity are linked to success in close relationships. Note, however, that Erikson believed that the relevant events occur
a decade later in the individual’s development than was thought to be the case by Harry Stack Sullivan.
Other psychoanalytic theorists, such as Freud, gave little attention to peer relationships as a significant feature of personality development. One exception was Peter Blos (1979), who regarded peer relationships as critical in promoting the individual’s “second individuation” from parents. In early childhood, children acquire a basis for separating “self from other” in the anxieties, approval–disapproval, and tangled elements of attraction to mothers and fathers. In adolescence, however, driven by erotic drives and the desire to affiliate with compeers, children begin a second restructuring of their relationships with their parents, in which self-regulation begins to supplant the regulation of the child’s life by parents. In the course of this restructuring, adolescents turn to peers for belongingness and empathy.
Although these three psychoanalytic writers believed in a somewhat different timetable as to when peer relationships become transcendent in social life, there is agreement that intimacy, empathy, and loyalty in peer relationships emerge mainly in the second decade of life. Each of these writers took pains to argue that social epigenesis is not complete without a description of how close relationships with compeers (including romantic partners) enter the picture and what functions they serve.
Attachment Theory and the Organizational View of Adaptation
Present-day attachment theory is the work of many individuals. Sigmund Freud (1914/1957) began this work by outlining the anaclitic relationship that develops between infant and mother on the basis of the need gratification she provides. John Bowlby (1958) reconceptualized the attachment relationship as a feedback system not dependent on primary gratification and outlined its functions in evolutionary terms; early attachments were believed to protect the infant from danger, as well as to orient it toward caregiving sources that can provide nourishment, a basis for emotional regulation, and knowledge about language and the world. Bowlby (1969) also formulated the construct “inner working models” to describe the cognitive residuals provided by these early relationships and the notion that individuals carry these models forward using them later in close relationships with other persons. Mary Ainsworth (see Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) advanced two notions, namely, that among the most important functions of early attachments is the provision of “security,” a construct tracing back through William Blatz (1966) to Harry Stack Sullivan and others, and that security in the child’s adaptation is promoted by “sensitive caregiving.”
Building upon these contributions, Alan Sroufe and Everett Waters (1977) advocated an organizational perspective on social development that considers the “organization” of emotion, cognition, and social behavior exhibited anywhere in development to be central to defining individual differences. Such organization derives from early relationships, especially with the primary caregiver (Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). Early attachments set the stage for peer relationships by not only providing the child with a secure base for expanding his or her social experience beyond the family but also by carrying forward a working model of relationships. Early relationships between child and caregiver continue to bear a direct relation to later relationships within the family and to peer competence outside it. Social development, however, is better described as a series of intertwined or complementary influences in which the quality of early family
relationships has a bearing on some aspects of peer relationships (e.g., whether the child has a friend), whereas peer competence bears on others (e.g., the quality of the child’s friendships). Empirical demonstration shows that these linkages extend through early adulthood and also involve romantic relationships (see Collins & Madsen, 2005).
Cognitive Viewpoints
Robert Selman (1980) suggests that developmental transformations occur in children’s thinking about friendships in a more or less invariant order that is linked to the development of perspective taking in early and middle childhood. These developments begin when “friends” are regarded only as “playmates” (Stage 0); change when children regard one another as supplying primary gratification (Stage 1); regard themselves as involved in reciprocal relationships (Stage 2), then see these relationships as reciprocal ones (Stage 3), and finally conceive relationships as encompassing both dependence on one another and independence (Stage 4).
One must also note that the described developmental progression may not consist of the emergence of new and unrelated notions about friendship but rather reflect transformations in the child’s understanding of reciprocity. Direct reciprocity (as opposed to complementary reciprocity) seems to underlie friendship expectations at all ages. James Youniss (1980) argued that, early in middle childhood, children expect friendship interaction to involve matched contributions by the children; during preadolescence, the reciprocities of friendship extend to cooperation and equal treatment of one another. Early adolescence extends these reciprocities even further to include a sense that friends share identities: “I” and “You” become “We.” Once again, the conclusion seems warranted that reciprocities define friendship expectations—at all ages. Willard Hartup (1996) goes on to use a linguistic metaphor to describe these circumstances, namely, that whereas reciprocity constitutes the deep structure of friendship at all ages, the social behaviors exemplifying this construct change with age.
Behavior Systems Theory
Combining elements derived from Sullivan’s interpersonal theory, attachment theory, and cognitive theory, Wyndol Furman uses a behavior systems orientation in research involving peer and romantic relationships (e.g., Furman & Wehner, 1994). A “behavior system” is a goal-corrected partnership functioning to maintain a tie between the individual and his or her partners. Four such systems are believed to dominate interpersonal relationships—attachment, caretaking, affiliative, and sexual/reproductive—each having a different degree of importance in different developmental epochs. The attachment system, for example, dominates parent–child relations during the early years but functions in reconfigured and less prominent ways in peer and romantic relationships during adolescence. The affiliative system, encompassing play, cooperation, collaboration, and reciprocity, appears initially in parent–child relations but comes to dominate relations with compeers in childhood (Weiss, 1986). Romantic relationships during adolescence incorporate both of these systems, but caretaking and sexual/reproductive systems are added. The individual’s cognitive representations or “views” of these systems parallel behavioral functioning and reflect the developmental changes across childhood and adolescence that mark the systems themselves (see Furman & Collins, Chapter 19, this volume).
Social Exchange Theory
The various ideas that constitute social exchange theory are based on the observation that human beings survive and reproduce only by exchanging resources. The term “social exchange” does not mean “social interaction”; rather, it refers to resource-based exchanges that occur between individuals. One key assumption is that human beings attempt to maximize benefits and rewards (actually rewards minus costs) by engaging in interactions with others.
The nature of the social exchange begins to affect individuals during their first encounters in terms of expectations and behavior toward one another. Should ensuing interactions be mutually rewarding, the tendency for partners to seek out one another grows stronger and the likelihood of future interactions greater. “Interdependence” is the state of affairs that exists when individuals become dependent on one another for numerous and significant rewards (Kelley et al., 1983). The rewards and costs relevant to close relationships are varied, and some are unique to specific relationships. Social rewards, such as the experience of intimacy and closeness, are major supports for the emergence and maintenance of relationships, whereas competition, aggression, and conflict are major costs. When interdependencies are strong, encompass diverse situations and activities, and recur over substantial periods, one can consider the individuals as being in a “close” relationship (Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989).
Two kinds of relationships may be identified depending on the equities involved: “Communal relationships” involve mutual recognition of one another’s needs, and the assumption that rewards and costs will be equitable over time without close monitoring; “exchange relationships,” on the other hand, depend on giving benefits, with the expectation that one will receive comparable benefits in return (Clark & Mills, 1979). Communal relationships can be symmetrical or asymmetrical in terms of the responsibility that individuals take for one another. Friendships and romantic relationships are mostly symmetrical, whereas parent–child relationships and some sibling relationships mostly are not.
Social exchange theories seem rigid and materialistic to many critics, but the interdependencies that come with these exchanges occur in many everyday contexts. As an investigator, one may prefer to regard relationships as resting on security, empathy, or the need for intimacy (see earlier discussion). But there can be little doubt that interpersonal exchanges based on social equity are evident in all cultures and facilitate coordinated social behavior (Laursen & Graziano, 2002). Given that nearly every theory relating to the formation and functioning of children’s friendships stresses reciprocity, it is surprising that exchange theory has not been exploited more extensively in relevant research. Increasingly, however, this theory drives research on romantic relationships in adolescence (Furman & Collins, Chapter 19, this volume).
Peer Groups
Social experience for most children and adolescents includes banding together in collectives with two or three other children, sometimes many more. Friendships and other dyadic relationships are sometimes embedded or nested in groups, sometimes not. In any event, children’s groups are more than the sum of the dyadic relationships existing within them. Groups have unique characteristics; they vary in size, cohesiveness, density,
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Salaliittolaiset
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: Salaliittolaiset
Romaani Ranskan vallankumouksesta
Author: Alexandre Dumas
Translator: Urho Kivimäki
Release date: June 22, 2024 [eBook #73892]
Language: Finnish
Original publication: Hämeenlinna: Arvi A. Karisto, 1924
Credits: Juhani Kärkkäinen and Tapio Riikonen
SALALIITTOLAISET
Romaani Ranskan vallankumouksesta
Kirj.
ALEXANDRE DUMAS
Ranskankielestä suomentanut
Urho Kivimäki
Hämeenlinnassa, Arvi A. Karisto Osakeyhtiö, 1924.
SISÄLLYS:
I. Kuningatar
II. Kuningas
III. Vanhoja tuttuja
IV. Lukija saa ilokseen huomata, että herra de Beausire on pysynyt entisellään
V. Oidipos ja Lot
VI. Gainain näyttää, että hän todella on mestarin mestari, kaikkien mestari
VII. Puhutaan kaikesta muusta kuin lukkosepän ammatista
VIII. Todistetaan, että Jumala holhoo humalaisia
IX. Mitä on sattuma
X. Tohtori Guillotinin kone
XI. Iltaseurustelu Flora-paviljongissa
XII. Mitä kuningatar oli karahvissa nähnyt Tavernayn linnassa kaksikymmentä vuotta takaperin
XIII. Ruumiin ja sielun lääkäri
XIV. Monsieur kieltää Favrasin ja kuningas vannoo valan hallitusmuodolle
XV. Aatelismies.
XVI. Cagliostron ennustus toteutuu
XVII. Grève-tori
XVIII. Kuninkuus on pelastettu
XIX. Paluu maatilalle
XX. Pitou sairaanhoitajana
XXI. Pitou uskottuna
XXII. Pitou maantieteilijänä
XXIII. Pitou varusmestarina
XXIV. Apotti Fortier antaa uuden todistuksen vastavallankumouksellisesta mielialastaan
XXV. Ihmisoikeuksien julistus
XXVI. Ikkunan alla
XXVII. Ukko Clouis ilmestyy jälleen näyttämölle
XXVIII. Haukka ja kyyhky
XXIX. Väijytys
XXX. Myrskyn jälkeen
XXXI. Mirabeaun suuri petos
XXXII. Elämäneliksiiri
IKuningatar
Kenraali de Lafayette ja kreivi Louis de Bouillé nousivat Marsanpaviljongin pikkuportaita ja ilmoittautuivat ensimmäisen kerroksen huoneistossa, missä kuningas ja kuningatar asuivat. [Romaani on suoranaista jatkoa »Kreivitär de Charnylle». — Suom.]
Kaikki ovet avautuivat Lafayettelle. Vartiosotilaat tekivät kunniaa kivääreillään, kamaripalvelijat kumarsivat, sillä he tunsivat helposti kuninkaan palatsin hovimestarin, kuten Marat sanoi.
Kenraali opastettiin ensin kuningattaren luo; kuningas oli työpajassaan ja hänen majesteetilleen mentiin ilmoittamaan heidän tulostaan.
Kreivi de Bouillé ei ollut nähnyt Marie-Antoinettea kolmeen vuoteen.
Näiden kolmen vuoden aikana olivat valtiosäädyt kokoontuneet, Bastilji oli vallattu, ja lokakuun 5 ja 6 päivä oli eletty.
Kuningatar oli ehtinyt neljänteenneljättä ikävuoteensa, »liikuttavaan ikäkauteen», sanoo Michelet, »jota Van Dyck on niin mielellään maalannut, kypsyneen naisen, äidin ikäkauteen ja MarieAntoinettesta puhuttaessa erikoisesti kuningattaren ikäkauteen».
Kuluneitten kolmen vuoden aikana oli kuningatar saanut tuta sydämen ja mielen suruja, kokea lemmen ja itserakkauden tuskia.
Nämä neljäneljättä ikävuotta ilmenivät tässä naispoloisessa silmien seutuvilla lievinä, sinertävinä helmiäisvivahduksina, jotka juoruavat vuodatetuista kyynelistä, unettomista öistä ja jotka paljastavat räikeimmin sen syvän sielunsairauden, josta nainen — kuningatar tai kuka muu tahansa — ei parane, jos se on häneen iskenyt.
Vangittu Maria Stuart oli samanikäinen, kun hänen voimakkaimmat intohimonsa heräsivät, kun Douglas, Mortimer, Norfolk ja Babington rakastuivat häneen, uhrautuivat ja kuolivat hänen hyväkseen.
Nähdessään tämän vangitun, vihatun, soimatun ja uhatun kuningattaren — lokakuun 5 päivä oli osoittanut, etteivät nämä uhkailut olleet pelkkiä sanoja — tunsi nuori Louis de Bouillé ritarillisessa sydämessään syvää sääliä.
Naiset eivät erehdy milloinkaan siitä vaikutuksesta, jonka he tekevät miehiin, ja koska kuningattaret ja kuninkaat ovat tottuneet tuntemaan ihmisiä, mikä taito tavallaan on osa heidän kasvatuksestaan, niin Marie-Antoinettekin tunsi kreivi de Bouillén heti kun huomasi hänet, ja luotuaan häneen silmäyksen tiesi, että hänellä oli edessään ystävä.
Siitä johtui, että ennenkuin kenraali ehti esitellä serkkunsa, ennenkuin he ehtivät leposohvan luo, jolla kuningatar lojui, kohosi
tämä istumaan ja huudahti kuin vanhalle tutulle, jota on hauska jälleen tavata, tai kuin palvelijalle, jonka uskollisuuteen voi luottaa:
»Ah, herra de Bouillé!»
Piittaamatta kenraali Lafayettesta hän ojensi kätensä nuorelle miehelle.
Kreivi Louis empi hetken, hänen oli vaikea uskoa tällaista suosionosoitusta todeksi.
Kuningattaren käsi oli yhä ojennettuna; kreivi laskeutui toiselle polvelleen ja kosketti vapisevilla huulillaan tätä kättä.
Kuningatar-parka teki virheen ja hän teki niitä usein; ilman tätä suosionosoitustakin de Bouillé oli hänen ystävänsä ja osoittaessaan kreiville suosiotaan tällä tavalla Lafayetten nähden, joka ei ollut milloinkaan sellaista häneltä saanut, merkitsi hän siten rajaviivan ja loukkasi miestä, joka hänen olisi pitänyt ennen muita voittaa ystäväkseen.
Kohteliaasti, kuten hänen tapansa aina oli, mutta ääni hieman väristen sanoi Lafayette:
»Totisesti, parahin serkku, minä tosin tarjouduin esittelemään teidät hänen majesteetilleen, mutta minusta tuntuu, että te pikemminkin voisitte esitellä minut.»
Kuningatar oli niin iloinen nähdessään yhden niistä palvelijoista, joihin tiesi voivansa luottaa, nainen oli niin ylpeä siitä vaikutuksesta, jonka huomasi tehneensä kreiviin, että hän tunsi sydämessään sen nuoruustulen lämmittävät säteet, jonka hän luuli jo sammuneen, ja tunsi lähellään lehahduksen siitä keväästä ja rakkaudesta, joiden hän
